HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court has formally acquitted a teacher who had been accused of being responsible for the death of a student, Naila Rind, inside her Sindh University hostel room on Jan 1, 2017.
The division bench, which comprised Mr Justice Omer Siyal and Mr Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman, issued a comprehensive 16-page judgement regarding the matter. In the ruling, the high court determined that there was no direct evidence whatsoever existing against the accused individual, noting that the entirety of the prosecution’s case had hinged solely and exclusively upon the personal testimony of the investigating officer.
The formal judgement was authored by Mr Justice Siyal after his bench had partly heard the legal matter at the Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit. The decision was officially pronounced on Monday by an alternative division bench, which comprised Mr Justice Amjad Ali Bohio and Mr Justice Mohammad Hasan Akber.
Concurrently, the bench has formulated and written a specific set of seven directives aimed at the trial courts in the wake of the extensive trial of this particular case. Throughout these legal proceedings, the appellant was legally represented by advocate Waqar Siyal.
SHC remarks entire case against accused hinges on testimony of investigating officer alone; Naila Rind had died by suicide in her hostel room; prime accused already convicted by ATC
Naila Rind, who was a final-year student within the Sindhi department at Sindh University, was initially found dead by her teacher, Mahjabeen Kathi, who teaches physiology at the educational institution. The body of Miss Rind was discovered hanging from the ceiling fan of her hostel accommodation room.
Following the discovery, the Jamshoro police subsequently arrested Anees Khaskheli, a private school teacher, acting in the light of digital data retrieved directly from his personal mobile phone, which revealed a pattern of frequent communication between the two individuals.
The formal charge-sheet for the case was submitted before the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Hyderabad in January 2023, following the initial registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 315, 316, and 509 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), alongside Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (Peca) Ordinance 2009, and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) 1997. The Anti-Terrorism Court had subsequently sentenced Anees Khaskheli on Jan 30, 2023 to life imprisonment for the offences relating to the PPC and the ATA. This sentence was accompanied by a financial fine of Rs200,000, with a proviso for one additional year in prison in the case of a default on payment.
Furthermore, he was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the specific violation of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, along with an additional fine of Rs25,000, or an additional six months of incarceration in the event of default. The accused subsequently challenged this conviction in the Sindh High Court, which concluded its formal proceedings regarding the appeal in Karachi on April 18, 2026. The final judgement was announced today at this location by another bench.
The factual background of the case indicates that Mahjabeen Kathi informed the police that on Dec 31, 2016, Naila Rind had sought her permission to visit a medical doctor alongside her male cousin at 8:00pm. Considering the overall safety of the student, the teacher declined the request and instead offered to accompany her to see the doctor using the university ambulance service. Following this interaction, Miss Rind immediately returned to the other room.
On the next day, being Jan 1, 2017, after the sunset, the teacher found that the student’s room door was locked. After receiving no answer or response from her, Mahjabeen Kathi moved the window of the room, only to discover her hanging from the ceiling fan. The student’s brother, Nisar Ahmed, subsequently lodged the formal FIR. Members of Naila Rind’s family told the police that she had previously informed them that she was being constantly harassed by an unidentified individual.
In its legal opinion, the bench ruled that regarding an offence under the Anti-Terrorism Act, no dissemination or public display of photographs, blackmail or unlawful act on the part of the accused was proved, concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
According to the specific case put forward by the prosecution, the police had relied almost entirely upon the evidence of call data records showing regular contact between her and the accused, personal photographs recovered from the mobile phone of Anees Khaskheli, WhatsApp messages and the testimonies delivered by her brother and other family members.
However, the court noted that Anees Khaskheli and Naila Rind shared a personal relationship marked by the typical ups and downs of such relationships, stating that the existence of their private communication alone does not inherently tie him to her tragic decision to commit suicide.
The order stated that within the legal framework, a relationship cannot automatically be equated with guilt. Instead, objective evidence must be evaluated to determine if there was any actual instigation or legal wrongdoing, rather than relying on blame or assumptions.
The Sindh High Court observed that they found the accounts provided by Naila’s family and by Saima Hussain to be afterthoughts. The court noted that none of the family members had mentioned the mobile number of Anees Khaskheli to people between Jan 1 and Jan 6, 2017, and his cellular number surfaced only after his arrest on Jan 6.
The court further stated that the prosecution’s case rests substantially on the theory of the investigating officer, Tahir Mughal, which posited that because Naila Rind did not meet the accused, Anees Khaskheli sent her private photographs and threatened to disseminate them. It noted that forensic data recovery confirmed personal photos were exchanged, but under the law, the mere possession of private photographs — absent of their dissemination or their use for blackmail — is not an unlawful act. The bench noted it had invited the prosecution to identify any specific law that criminalises the possession of such photographs, but none was pointed to.
On the issue of terrorism, the Sindh High Court judges stated they failed to comprehend how the trial court concluded that this was a case of terrorism, noting that the court has consistently held that cases must not be categorized as terrorism arbitrarily. The bench remarked that every serious crime causes trauma to those involved, but that factor alone does not make it terrorism.
Regarding the application of Peca 2016, the court stated no evidence was produced to establish either of these requisite mental elements. No dissemination or public display of any photograph was proved — or for that matter, even alleged — by the prosecution.
The court termed the press conference held by the DIG at that time, Khadim Rind, as reckless and wholly inappropriate, as the DIG had publicly termed the incident a murder and not a suicide. The bench observed that at that point, not a shred of evidence supported that conclusion, nor has any emerged since.
In its directives for trial courts, the bench ruled that the practice of producing hundreds of pages of call logs accompanied by a blanket assertion that ‘the record shows contact’ is insufficient, and the relevance of each entry to the case must be judicially reviewed.
Seven directives
Likewise, the Sindh High Court stated that judgements must give clear reasons. A simple reproduction of evidence, followed by a general statement that the above proves the charge, does not suffice. Evidence must be legally analysed and specific findings given, and judgements should greatly reduce the reproduction of evidence in extenso. Great time, thought, and space must be devoted to legal analysis. It added that trial courts must give careful attention to sentencing and must remain current on major principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and high courts.
Finally, the court observed that when sensitive photographs are introduced as evidence, the trial court and the high court must place them in a sealed, non-transparent envelope, which should only be opened on a strict need-to-know basis. Police, equally, must handle such material with strict confidentiality. Courts and law enforcement agencies must not themselves violate that principle by carelessly handling such evidence.
Published in Dawn, July 14th, 2026